The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution

Standard


Opinion among many news commentators as well as actual news reporters is that the Supreme Court will once again try to avoid making the difficult decision, as it did with the “Obamacare” ruling, by finding a technicality that allows them to do nothing about Proposition 8 or DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). As Sally Kohn, one of the FoxNews.com ‘opinionators’ admits: “The Supreme Court will either ride the wave or try to block it or dodge it, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter. The tide has irrevocably turned.” (NOTE: The headline (see “Reference”) for this Fox News Opinion piece, because Fox News vocally opposes same-sex marriage, made no attempt to be fair or balanced by unfairly implying that because Chief Justice Roberts has a cousin who is gay it will sway his opinion.)

Ms. Kohn is right that the tide has turned. The majority of the public now supports the right of same-sex couples to marry and obtain all the benefits and rights that go along with a legal marriage but, at the same time, Ms. Kohn is very wrong! It does matter a great deal what the Supreme Court says when they make their ruling. Even the most Conservative Justice will have a hard time dismissing the FACT that to deny legal marriage based on gender, race or sexual preference is clearly unconstitutional. Not only is it unconstitutional now, because public opinion has turned to favor same-sex marriage, the opposing view has always been unconstitutional.

The argument used to be that because the majority of the California voters voted for Proposition 8, those who opposed it will have to live with it and because other states have adopted DOMA or DOMA-like provisions into their state constitutions, it is legal in those states to refuse marriage to same sex couples. Those were false arguments! Public opinion on this issue does not matter nor do biblical admonitions!

The U.S. Constitution overrules state laws that are unconstitutional at the Federal level and if our Supreme Court Justices have the intestinal fortitude to interpret the Constitution correctly they can do nothing but overturn Proposition 8 and DOMA.

This is not, as most media outlets have described it, a “gay rights” issue; this is an issue of equal justice under the law for all American citizens, without regard to their sexual identity or their choice of a marriage partner.

REFERENCE:

FoxNews.com Opinion: Marriage equality, the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice’s cousin

The Advent of Obamaism

Standard

It’s January of 2009: the National Debt as a percentage of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is at record levels, the economy is crumbling, the unemployment roles are burgeoning and a new president is in office. He’s charismatic, charming, well spoken and he is in every sense ‘America’s Great Hope’ for survival. The national problems are not his fault but he was elected on the assumption (as we would assume of any president) that he would do his best to correct these problems.

So, does he do his best to get spending and borrowing under control? Does he do his best to get the economy running at ‘full steam?’ Does he understand and accept that there is an immutable link between a healthy economy and low unemployment? The answer is NO on all counts.

So what does America’s Great Hope do? He plays politics and continues the mindset of his former civilian role as an Alinsky-trained Community Organizer. He dropped lots of hints when he was running for the office but no one chose to see past their hard feelings for the Bush administration. What the gullible public did not understand when they elected him is that he detests America as it is, has no respect for the Constitution and wants government to control of every important aspect of American’s lives.

Granted, that’s a hefty accusation but look at his actions and judge for yourselves:

In the face of near economic disaster, this new president’s initial focus is on revamping the best medical care system the world has ever seen, a system that refuses medical care to no one; revamping it until it is so complex that not even doctors fully understand what they can and can’t do without running afoul of the over 50 thousand pages of new rules that were put in place to control them and the medical insurance companies. It’s a plan to cripple the system and it is working. It’s a plan to increase government spending and control, not reduce it; it’s done that as well!

Then, rather than trying to help business, this new president attempts to put new taxes on business in the form of a carbon tax — something that not even the visionary Ayn Rand had considered as a ploy for her fictional, failing American government.

He then raises income taxes specifically on the “rich” as if he doesn’t understand even the most basic principles of the American economy. Perhaps he doesn’t, or more likely, he doesn’t want to. His approach to the economy is not only eerily similar to Marx’s, it is identical: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

The president KNOWS his history, he knows that Marxism, Communism and Socialism are all failed systems of government and that is why he is following Marx’s path to failure, with an evil twist: he wants our free market system to fail so the government (not the common worker) can, eventually, gain control of the “means of production.” That is obviously a long-range plan but if he starts the ‘ball rolling’ and sets the right precedents, future liberals can grab that ball and start running with it making him the founder of a new system of government: “Obamaism.”

Droning On: The answer to Rand Paul’s Question is a Qualified YES!

Standard

Rand Paul provided a valuable service to the American Public by filibustering on the issue of the Constitutionality of using drones against American citizens on American soil. To my mind, this is a non-issue but Paul’s filibuster at least started the national conversation and went a long way toward pinning the White House down to a specific answer.

Logically the answer is YES, the use of a drone against a terrorist, American citizen or not, is perfectly appropriate under the right circumstances.

Circumstances?

A drone strike is simply a high-tech version of deadly force. Every day law enforcement is forced to use deadly force against criminals and if there ever was a criminal who needed to die it is the terrorist who would think nothing of using deadly force against innocent civilians (which is the core definition of “terrorist”).

Because a drone has much more potential of creating collateral damage than say a SWAT team, Drone operations should be used only in areas where the possibility of collateral damage is minimal to non-existent; just as it is with SWAT teams who are always cautious of even taking a shot with a conventional weapon if there exists even a minimal chance of other people being hurt or killed.

Just because the hypothetical terrorist in Paul’s filibuster is an American citizen there is NO reason to suppose that there was a lack of a thorough investigation and close surveillance of the subject. Most of us may have lost all confidence in the Federal Government for one reason or another but there is no valid reason to believe the conspiracy theories that assume that the Federal government will authorize a “HIT” on an innocent citizen or that a SWAT team or a drone will be called in to execute a person for no valid legal reason.

A final thought, if the hypothetical American terrorist in question is actually working with a regime that is a declared (or self-declared) enemy of the United States, he or she has in fact renounced his or her American citizenship and may be found guilty of Treason by “adhering to an enemy of the United States by offering that enemy aid and comfort.” (That is part of the legal definition of Treason.)

Reference:

The New American: “Treason, Defined and Enforced”

Legal Dictionary: “Deadly Force”

President Obama is squealing like a stuck pig

Standard


Our president is making it painfully obvious that all he wants is a large government that can run roughshod over the people. The sequester means a reduced government, reduced in size and reduced in power (but only microscopically in relation to our budget deficit) and he can’t handle even that.

President Obama is doing everything in his power to extort tax hikes out of the Republican controlled Congress: he’s spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to use the media to over-dramatize the effects of the sequester and, as his latest tactic, he has directed his Homeland Security Director, the ‘least honorable’ Janet Napolitano, to release thousands of criminal aliens out of jails and into the public; a clear illustration of how little the president cares about public safety and how little Napolitano really cares about homeland security.

President Obama has the power to MANAGE budget cuts in the sense that every department with a reduced budget had the ability to prioritize and control what is cut and every department ultimately answers to the president. Our president, however, has apparently chosen to make every budget cut as obscene and painful as possible — that’s the kind of person you elected as president. A person who cares nothing about the debt that will choke us down the line, a person who cares so little about National Defense that he will cut our military and then never even consider reducing foreign aid ($250 million went to Egypt today) even to our sworn enemies.

As sad as it is to think of people getting their pay cut or losing their jobs altogether, the saddest thing is perhaps the fact that a prioritized reduction in the scope of activities of every government department, a reduction in pay for every Federal department head and his or her top two or three assistants, a 50% reduction in foreign aid across the board, a sell-off of government lands (there will be plenty of buyers) and there are certainly thousands other economy measures the government can take that would, in the end, be far less painful and save many jobs.

This will never happen, of course, because we have a president who want’s the power that an inflated government has given him for the past 5 years — President Obama will fight ‘tooth and nail’ against a reduction in the size of his “Kingdom.”

To understand how inflated and out of control our government has become since President Obama took office, American Media is a waste of time, if you want an objective look at our ‘forest of shame’ from outside that forest, suggested reading would be the news media from outside the U.S.; in particular, today’s edition of the “Canada Free Press” where you will find an explosive expose of the state and size of our government. The article is titled: Post-Constitutional America: The Trap is Closing. Before reading the article sit and think about that title: “Post-Constitutional America” and be afraid, be VERY afraid.

It’s not mere rhetoric!